 I'm delighted now to welcome the Under Secretary of State for Economic Growth Energy in the Environment, Kathy Novelli. I think Kathy is a familiar figure to many here. You can read her full bio. She's been at the State Department in this role since February. She was at Apple before this, and most of us remember and know her as a longtime USTR official. She was assistant USTR for Europe and the Mediterranean, and involved in a lot of trade issues that are still very much on the front burner today. So she's got a lot of great experience in economic statecraft. I also note that she spent some time at the London School of Economics, my alma mater, so I'm delighted to hear that. So what we're going to do is I'm going to spend the first 20 minutes or so asking Kathy a few questions, and then I'll open it up to the audience, and we'll use the same format of identifying yourself and asking real questions. So let me start, Kathy, welcome again by saying that you have an impossibly large portfolio ranging from Chinese economic relations to oceans policy and a lot in between. How do you prioritize all this, and how do you decide what's important to work on, and what do you think is important in what you do? Well, I think, you know, priorities are, when I first came in, people said, what do you want to get done, and I had, you know, three or four things that I knew I wanted to focus on, you know, working on rules-based systems, so that's, you know, all of our trade negotiations and bit negotiations, and making sure those go forward, working on intelligence about the Internet, and when I say that I mean really getting a much more multilateral basic understanding of the value of the Internet, which I think is missing, and so we're trying to negotiate all of these things without a kind of consensus that it's important to keep the Internet clear, as well as working on the Secretary's Oceans Conference, and as with everything, when you get involved, you find out that there's a whole lot of other things that have to be done, and I should say one of the other big pieces here was the fact that the Bureau was relatively recently formed, and so the question, which I know you've talked about, of, you know, how to make sure that the State Department was at least punching at its weight, if not above its weight, and how to integrate all these pieces, which actually all of them do have components that relate to each other, not always at every moment, but, for example, on oceans, there's a huge economic component there. On the peace process, there's a huge economic component. On environment, energy is critically important, so you can't really do a good job of forwarding anything without making sure that you've got all these pieces together, so even though the portfolio seems very, very large, it actually makes sense in terms of bringing these pieces together, and in looking at kind of an overall frame of how do you decide what's important. Secretary Kerry has put forward, following on, Secretary Clinton's economic straight craft put forward the idea of the shared prosperity agenda, and that we need to be looking at how do we further things that are going to promote the prosperity of our colleagues and friends in other countries and our own prosperity, and what do we do, and economics is obviously central to that, so we're all these other pieces, having a healthy environment, having energy that works and is not contributing to climate change and economic development, so what I've been trying to do is focus on the places where all the intersections of these pieces come together and allow us to do things that are tangible, tangibles for us and tangible for our friends and other countries, because I think that just talking is a good thing, and it's good to have theories and underpinning, but results are better, so we're really looking at what can we do that are very results based, and that means you have to kind of narrow down what you do, because you can't do everything, or as one of my dear friends says, you can't boil the ocean, and so for example we're just doing something new that we haven't ever done before at the African Leaders Summit, where we're trying to bring together various pieces, and we're bringing supply chain experts, so the ops people of major U.S. companies, who are the ones who decide where are they going to source inputs from, where are they going to source manufacturing from, where are they going to put their own presences, and we're bringing them to the table to say, here's the things we care about as big brands, we care about all of the trade facilitation things that have been negotiated in theory, but here's what it means to us in practice, and this is why these things matter, we care about having strong environmental protection, so our brands aren't harmed, we care about having good labor policies and ability to hire workers and to dismiss them if they're not doing their job properly, but in an orderly way, and so they're going to list these kind of things that are their criteria, and then we have of course the African Ministers there to listen, and then we have AID there to also say, okay well where there's gaps in your country, how do we actually make these things happen in a practical way, so it sort of takes a layer below just the agreeing on the agreements, and what does that really mean in people's daily lives, and how do you use that to create jobs, so that's one example of trying to pull different pieces together of state's agenda, and trying to work on development, prosperity, and also have tangible results. Okay, and I think this raises a bunch of interesting themes that I want to come back to when we talk sort of more broadly about economic statecraft, but let me go through a couple of substantive issues that are very much in the headlines today, one is obviously Russia and the situation in Ukraine, which seems to go from bad to worse, so the administration has announced a series of escalating sanctions, and I guess the question is what do we hope, what do we see as the end point, what do we hope to achieve through the use of sanctions, and how do we weigh the, because many people point out that sanctions may or may not affect Russian behavior, but they do have an impact on us and a cost for us in the short term and the long term, so how do we balance sanctions with other tools, including other economic tools, to try to affect that situation? Well, as we were talking about before we came out here in public, sanctions are a tool that we have, they're not a perfect tool, but they're the tool we have, and I think when you balance them against the, using the military, they start to look like a better tool. In terms of what we want as a result, I think what we want is for Russia to respect the sovereignty of Ukraine, to not be interfering in that country militarily or otherwise, and we have evidence that in fact they are interfering militarily, and I think you're absolutely right that there's a cost to sanctions. One of the things that we've looked at when we've been trying to design what to do is how do we have sanctions that are going to have an impact, admittedly that impact may not be immediate, but that are directed at things that will matter to Russia for its both short term and long term interests, but also how do we do this in a way that isn't going to shoot ourselves in the foot, and that involves making sure that we're not the only ones taking sanctions because if we're, if we're saying, well, our companies or our banks can't take certain actions vis-a-vis Russia, then we don't want a situation where our allies are sort of going into the breach saying, hey, you know, work with us instead. So we've been working assiduously with our European colleagues to make sure that they are also on the same path we are, and I think you've seen the results of that work finally over the weekend. And so we're trying to be very closely in lockstep with them, so then also with our colleagues from Japan so that we don't have this kind of situation where other companies can benefit from this. But we want things to actually bite, and we've carefully chosen what we've done to date and, you know, obviously, it's nothing I can discuss in specifics here, but we're looking at if we have to do more, what would that be? And it's very carefully calibrated so that it's targeted and scalpel-like, affects as few U.S. companies as possible, but has the biggest impact as possible on Russia. Okay, shifting to another part of the world that you were just in, apparently, last week, China. So China's extraordinary economic success over the last three decades was largely due to the fact that it was willing to open up and pull itself more deeply into the global rules-based system that you mentioned earlier. Yet recently, Beijing seems to be, at least in some areas, more interested in going it alone, and so it recently created with its other emerging partners, a BRICS bank. It's proposing an Asian infrastructure bank that would potentially compete with the existing Asian Development Bank. You know, even the environment for foreign investment in China has become noticeably less friendly. Microsoft's offices were rated overnight, apparently, and there have been a lot of similar challenges. So putting all this together, I wonder whether China is taking a new approach from the approach it took the past 30 years, and how we should respond to it, how should we should see that, should we be concerned about that, or is this something that is a natural part of their evolution? Well, I guess what I would say about China is, at the same time that we hear about these things that are going on, and I don't want to minimize their significance, their importance, and the fact that playing by the rules and the international rules is absolutely key, and that we're going to hold China to the commitments that they made. I also think there's a lot of things going on, and for me, besides the formal meetings, I spent a lot of time informally talking to business folks, entrepreneurs, environmental activists while I was in China, and it was very interesting to see how things were evolving there. And so I think there is a, well, there's certainly an appetite for concluding a bilateral investment treaty, which is quite amazing. The first thing I worked on in my government career in the 80s was the U.S.-China bit negotiations, and I have to say it was the most frustrating thing I was involved in for my entire career, so I was sort of pleasantly surprised coming back and seeing that the government is actually serious in China about that, which in a way is a counterweight to all the things that you said, because that is going to guarantee an open investment regime, a fair and level playing field, and give us and companies something to kind of look back on and use as a way to hold people's feet to the fire. So I think it's a mixed picture. I don't think it's all bad. I think there's a mixed picture. There's no doubt that China is asserting itself, and it's growth in the economy, and it wants to assert itself politically, and there's no doubt about that, and it's a big country, and these are things that we are going to have to deal with. I think one of the things we've said on the new Asia Development Bank is that for us, we think it's absolutely key that any bank that gets formed also have a rules-based, good governance kind of way of proceeding, and I know that our Asian counterparts in other countries that China has solicited also feel that way, and so I think there's a lot that can be done to kind of make sure that as China spreads its wings, it's a doing so in a way that is consonant with international rules, and I think that's something that we are going to have to keep in dialogue about. I think that there is a lot of activity, particularly now on the anti-monopoly side, and that is a relatively new law for China. We have heard some very negative reports about how it's being applied. It's something I raised with the NDRC when I was there. I co-chaired a dialogue with them. This is one of the things we talked about is how can this be done in a transparent, fair way so that companies are not being just kind of surprised by raids and having prices being jaw-boned by a government regulator. One of the other things that I think that they're going to have to deal with is how does their state-owned enterprise sector interact with all of this other economic activity, and are they going to hold those companies to these same kinds of rules? What happens if they apply the anti-monopoly law to them, and how is that all going to work? And they, of course, are assuring us that that's what they're going to do, that everything's going to be equal, but I think that's going to have to remain to be seen how that plays out, and that's something that we're going to have to be very, very vigilant about. But the other thing I would say that I thought was actually a very bright spot was meeting with a bunch of young tech entrepreneurs who have started up companies that are thriving without any government assistance. They don't want any government assistance. And I think that while this may not be a panacea for the short term, I do think that having more of this type of innovation occurring inside China illegitimately by young Chinese entrepreneurs is going to be extremely helpful in our quest for better intellectual property enforcement, because now there's going to be a vested interest in having a really strong regime. And we saw this with Israel where once they started developing a software industry, they were one of the strongest in the world, because it wasn't just somebody from the outside saying protect my stuff, they're protecting their own. So I think there's, I think there's some reason to hope that things are going to get better. That doesn't mean that as that occurs, that we don't have to still be vigilant. Okay, a lot of issues. Again, you have so much under your portfolio, it's hard to go through everything. But let me ask about trade really quickly. So as a former trade negotiator, this is a subject, you know, well, and particularly, we have negotiations ongoing with the European Union and the transatlantic trade and investment partnership, and with our some of our Asian partners in the Trans Pacific Partnership. But in both of these agreements are really critical to not only our global trade strategy, but also to our respective regional strategies in those two parts of the world. But both of these agreements seem to be facing some pretty significant headwinds, you know, both in the negotiating room and, frankly, in Congress. And so I guess the question is what what do you think it will take to get these things done? And, you know, can we expect to see progress in the near future, especially on TPP, which, you know, which seems kind of mission critical to what we're trying to do in Asia? Right. And I think it is mission critical. And I think having a very high standard agreement that that can be a bar for others to look to is absolutely critical in Asia. We are making progress there. Great deal of progress. And although it's not always in the headlines, you know, talks are going on an almost a continual basis. So I feel confident that we're going to end up in a good place with a high level agreement that we can all say is going to benefit our private sector. And I think the question of the Congress, you know, rightly, it's Congress's job to look out for US economic interests. And so Ambassador Froman has said, and I completely concur with this, that, you know, the stronger agreement we bring back, the more we're going to be able to make headway with the Congress, because there's going to be constituents behind that agreement, both, you know, US companies, but also those care about labor and environment and all the other issues that go into an economy. And, and that makes it easier for those in Congress who are concerned to actually move forward. So I think it is important to get the substance right in these agreements. And I think we're absolutely headed to do that for TPP. For TTIB, that's always something that I thought was not going to be concluded in a year. The relationship is so complicated. And what we're trying to do is another rung above, you know, garden variety kind of trade issues, because we're looking at all these regulatory issues. And those are very, very difficult. But again, I think that gives us a place to actually show what can be done, completely innovate in that area. And so we're going to have to live through the change that's going to happen in the European Commission, you know, their normal changing of the guard. And that slows things down a little bit. But I believe that we can get there on, on on TTIB as well. But it's not going to be between now and the end of the year. Okay. Let me try to tie your energy and environment portfolio together by saying, as you did, that they're interconnected. So the US is going through this sort of revolution and our energy posture with the development of shale gas and new fuel sources. So two part question first, what what kind of leverage does this new posture give us in our foreign policy? Or does it give us additional leverage because we're more, more self dependent in in in energy. And and secondly, on the other hand, since we're still talking here about use of greater use of fossil fuels, to what extent does this revolution and new posture kind of complicate our efforts internationally to advance progress on curbing greenhouse gases and and addressing climate change? Well, those are excellent and very tough questions. I don't know that we think about the revolution that we're having here on gas as something that we use as a leverage. And I certainly haven't seen that in the way that we've conducted our policy. It certainly is something that has caused a lot of countries to press us for greater exports, because they want access to it. And they see that it is a cleaner fuel than coal, even though it's still carbon based. And so, in terms of, you know, the continuum of what's going to have less emissions and affect, affect our CO2 gas has less, less effect. So it's kind of, if you would say going in the direction of helping on climate change, although it's not the same as wind or solar or other things. So, so I don't know that I would say it's a leverage. I think it has become a point of demand for us. And part of what we have to do when we look at this is say, Okay, well, what's in our own interest? And that's what the law requires us to do too. Because we now have access to very low priced energy. And we don't want to be in a situation where if we export a whole bunch of it, that's going to cause you know, our domestic fuel prices to rise on the other hand, if we if we are able to export it in a way that is consonant with our public interest, and that that's a good thing and creates jobs here and it helps it helps with others. So I think that's the conundrum that we look at. In terms of complicating our life on the on the quest for you know, using renewables, obviously, we are really pushing forward on the use of renewables. But we aren't going to be able to get from where we are today to 100% renewables in a short amount of time. So coal, gas, fossil fuels are going to be part of the mix, even as we try to build out more use of renewables. And folks are looking at how can we be more energy efficient in this and we're working with other countries on this. So that and Ukraine's a good example, you know, they're very dependent on Russia for gas. So one of the things that we're looking at with them is can Europe produce some reverse flows for them, but also, can they tighten up their energy efficiency so they have less demand. And so I think I think there's a lot of room for maneuver. And the president has said that, you know, it's an all of the above strategy in terms of fuel that's used. And I think that's what we're we're trying to do when we work with countries. But we are trying to do what we can to make the playing field attractive to use more renewable energy. Okay, finally, before I open to the audience, again, there are 1000 other things I'd like to ask about. But let me just ask a question about statecraft. So we did this report that I hope you had a chance to look at. And, you know, we tried to emphasize that that Secretary Kerry has clearly emphasized the importance of economic statecraft, or the shared prosperity agenda. And he said in his even in his confirmation hearings that foreign policy is economic policy, sort of echoing Secretary Clinton's emphasis on this issue as well. So there's a lot of focus on this. We were critical in the report of states weaknesses in this area, although we also emphasize its strengths and it's particularly as comparative advantage as I was talking about in the previous panel with its reach across countries and across the world. But from your perspective, having been on the job for a few months, what do you think our state strengths and what do you think are the tools that you need or can bring to the table to help advance our economic diplomacy? Well, there's no doubt that states reach is a huge strength that it has. I think states people are another huge strength that has it has incredibly smart dedicated people. And I think part of what what we need to do is give them the running room to think creatively and to and to mix in and integrate more clearly how economics and politics actually are completely intertwined with each other. And one of the things that I've done since being there, besides really putting an emphasis on management as opposed to just looking at, you know, running from this initiative to that initiative, but to get people working together and thinking together is also to bring together the regional bureaus with with all the folks in my house. So we meet biweekly to really brainstorm so that everyone knows what everyone else is doing, but also so folks can work together more clearly and integrate more clearly. In fact, this whole initiative on Africa that I described is something that we came to together. And this is something where, you know, having been in the private sector, having worked very closely with Apple supply chain folks. I know that the practical reality is sometimes slightly different than the theoretical reality. So I had that to bring to the table, but we had all these other folks who could bring other pieces. And we're trying to do that more and more and more. And we did that also on oceans where we had a conference that was 90 countries that I think most people feel was hugely successful beyond anything anybody could have thought. But the reason why that was is because we really integrated our regional bureaus together with our environment folks and with our economic folks. And we worked together hand and glove on that for months and months to make sure that everything was in place for having things that were delivered, having the right people there. And then we're working together on all the follow up, too. So I think part of this is creating linkages that are going to allow us to maximize our best self and our comparative advantage, which is being on the ground, but also having people who have that broader focus, you know, they're not just looking at one narrow thing. And that sense of perspective, I think is hugely important in any kind of discussion that goes on here from a policy perspective, too. Okay, great. Thank you very much. And let me open it up to questions from the audience. I'm sure there are questions. So if you have one, please raise your hand, wait for the mic. And please identify yourself and ask a question. Yes, sir. I'm Bob Hershey. I'm a consultant. You had mentioned the internet as one of your focuses. Can the internet be used for getting some of these things put together and getting the funding for them and having everything done transparently? Absolutely. And I'm really glad you asked that because one of the coolest things that I learned of when I first came to state is that somebody who was on my e-staff had sort of risen to the challenge of trying to do innovative things and it created a system called bids, which is an internet based system where you've got the state folks on the ground and the commerce folks working together who are inputting every opportunity for sales to government, but also for partnering with companies into this database that can then be searchable by country or by subject matter by any US company. And it not only has what the opportunity is, but it has a contact person at the embassy who can then help guide you through. And so to me, that's a really classic thing of taking the information. And this is what the internet is great at. And being able to spread it out to more people in an easier way. And I think that's something that we need to do more of at state is beef up on the technology side. Folks are not used to that. I'm proud to say I'm the beta tester of an iPad. But I think there's many more of these kind of things where we can outreach to people more clearly. Great. Okay. Yes, sir. Ken Meyer, Gord Waldox. It's widely held that the extremist groups in Syria and Iraq are being financed by entities in the Persian Gulf. Does the fact that we haven't imposed any sanctions on states or individuals in the Gulf mean that we don't see those groups as a big threat? Or even that we support their objectives? No, I mean, obviously, we do not support the objectives of any extremist groups. There are actually numerous rules that Treasury imposes on foreign assets control to deal with financing of groups. And I think they're quite robust in terms of what is our reach here in the US and how we can look at that. We also work through Interpol and others on terrorist financing. So that is a huge focus of the administration. And there's lots and lots of energy being put to do that. I don't think, I guess what I would say is I don't think that classic sanctions are the way to always deal with every single thing, the kind of sanctions that were worked that we have in place with Iran or with Russia. And I think what we're doing is appropriate in terms of trying to get out the money. Okay. Okay, go ahead. So Dana Marshall with Transnational Strategy Group. It's very nice to see you again, Kathy, after a long time. And I want to sort of take you back to the future. One of the first things we worked on is what has now become a wildly successful program, the QIZ program in Egypt. I think many of us know how successful that's been even under the toughest times there. My question that was looking at the future, obviously, again, dramatic developments in Egypt. Charlie Rifkin spoke recently at the US Chamber a bit on that. I was going to see if I could draw you out a bit about what might you guys be cooking up that you could share with us to try to support some of what CC is doing there in economic reform, building up business, and generally trying to kind of support what they're doing in Egypt. Well, there's a there's a huge and there will be a continuing aid budget to try to support both creating the infrastructure that you need for business to operate efficiently. And this goes to things like trade facilitation and how do you register your business, etc. As well as how do we support more innovation entrepreneurship, you know, going on in that economy. And I think, you know, getting more indigenous innovation is going to be key because that's going to also help derive efficiencies in the system. And I think I think there's a really a limit to what you can impose from the outside. So some of it folks have to understand is coming internally because it's going to actually help people in your own economy. One of the other things that we're really looking at is, as folks are putting regulatory systems in place, how can they make sure that the private sector has input into what's the outcome of any regulations that are going to happen? Because to me, and this comes from my private sector experience, even the most well intentioned government officials don't really understand like what's the nuts and bolts that businesses do. And I think you need both sides of it, you need the people who are worrying about public policy, but you also need, well, okay, if you want to get from point A to point B, what's going to be the most effective way? And I think that kind of work with Egypt is going to be very important as as they move forward and try to build something that is less bureaucratic and more, more geared towards making it easier for businesses to operate. Okay. Yes, sir. Richard Feinberg University of California in Brookings. Let me take you to the Western Hemisphere. Two interrelated questions. You spoke of Chinese assertiveness. There is a potential project for a second inter-Oceanic canal to be built through Nicaragua by the Chinese. Does the US government have a position on the desirability of such a canal? Have we spoken to the Chinese at all about the project? And then second question. The Summit of the Americas is an important multilateral forum for the United States to demonstrate our leadership in the hemisphere. All the Latin Americans have said that at the next impending summit in Panama in this coming spring that they will not attend if Cuba is not invited. Is the United States, in order to salvage a leadership forum for us, are we prepared to go along with the Latin American consensus on a Cuban presence? Well, this is where I can say happily that I am working on economic issues and not political ones. Obviously, our policy with Cuba is going to be what our policy with Cuba is and we will be working to make the Summit of Americas a success, but make it also consistent with our policy with respect to Cuba. In terms of the canal, I honestly, I don't know whether we've spoken to the Chinese or not. It's not something that I've been working on personally. Okay. Yes, ma'am. Hi, Abby Pratt with the Advanced Medical Technology Association. Could we just turn back to Russia for a little bit? I appreciate your comments about trying to target sanctions or at least think about sanctions in a way that doesn't disadvantage US industry. There is another aspect of sanctions and some fallout from that is that the Russian government wants to be more self-sufficient. They wanted to do this for a while economically, but I think it's speeding up the process leading to more forced localization or local content requirements. Could you talk a little bit about whether this issue is on your radar and what you might be doing to address it? Well, the issue of forced localization is absolutely on our radar and not just with respect to Russia. If you want to have any kind of a modern economy, forced localization, it doesn't work. I think you can see that in Spades with Brazil and its whole information technology sector where what is produced there is not the most modern products because of the way in which they have their requirements. I think so part of this is there's lots of examples about how that doesn't work for your own economy and we are now in a global supply chain in a global economy. In terms of Russia, we obviously we cannot control what the Russians do and while we certainly are and do discuss issues with Russia, the major kind of dialogues like we have and have with China are not at this moment in the most robust form because we are having these difficulties with each other. That doesn't mean that we don't both talk directly about this but also work with other countries who are like minded with us to also put pressure on this because I think forced localization is just a terrible idea across the board, not just for manufacturing, for having data centers that have to be located for all of those kind of things. It is on our radar and we are vigilantly fighting against it. Okay, Sean. Thank you, Sean Donnelly from the US Council for International Business. Kathy, could you just talk a little more about how it's working with the regional bureaus at the State Department and getting them involved in this? I think it's a key point in the report that CSIS has put together and any other sort of reactions you had to the report? Thanks. Well, just in terms of the regional bureaus, like I said, we get together biweekly with the economic gases. Everybody talks about what they're doing. My personal team is organized so that there is liaisons with each regional bureau. And I do feel like we're working pretty well and that by nature it's a matrix situation. And I think the goal is that everything economic that happens, we're touching it, we're driving it and that it's not in a stovepipe manner. And the more that we have successes doing that, the easier it is to work there. And I think we've developed some very, very good working relationships that have driven very specific things. So I read the whole report and I think there's a lot of food for thought there. I also think that some of the things that are noted in there are things that even not reading the report, I had already been on top of and trying to address. And I do feel like we're making a great deal of progress. I think our relationships in our agency are excellent. And I have felt no issues there at all. And I'm just looking forward to continuing that and growing it. And like I said, I think the more we can accomplish, the easier it is for that kind of integration to occur. And that's partly why I'm focusing on tangible things and just partly because I think tangible things are important. I would note that we did one of our top recommendations was that the E undersecretary should be the sort of the central organizing principle for economic statecraft and the central center point. So that recommendation, I hope you agree with. Okay, let's take maybe one or if there are two more questions. Yes, ma'am. And then we'll take the lady back there and then we'll wind it up. Thank you. My name is Linda. We've been following of CSIS. I have a question about China. Recently, Chinese top leaders are very active in foreign affairs, I think the result of that made many several big deals with other countries. For example, the gas from Russia, the LNG from England and some FTA from Korea and the UV standard with German. So even the Chinese market may be going bigger, but if the trade negotiation or the big negotiation with China don't have some big significant progress, I think maybe the potential share of US company in China will be declined. How do you think about this situation? Thank you. Okay, shall we just take the other one and then we'll do them together? Go ahead. Megan Tremarch, USDA Foreign Agricultural Service. Every so often we hear in the hallways the whispers of a combined trade agency and I just wanted to see if you had any thoughts on that. Combined trade agency. Yeah, okay. On that, I think that's not something I would personally think is a very good idea. I think that it is important for USTR to be very flexible and lean and so I would be very worried about folding them into a larger agency, that's just my personal view. On China, I think what I would say is I think it's fantastic that China is engaging with the other countries that they are working on these agreements, that they are more integrated and I hope that that continues and I think US companies can compete in a global environment and I have no doubt that they will and so many US companies are multilateral in any event and so I think the more integrated China is, the better for everybody and so I welcome all of that activity. Okay, terrific. Really fantastic tour to Forest Cathy and you covered a lot of ground and answered very with great insight and clarity and we really appreciate that and your just presence here is really an honor and very helpful to us in terms of our trying to get the story about economic statecraft outs. We appreciate that. I'm glad to read the report. I hope you all and your colleagues see it as a constructive contribution to what you're trying to do because we're certainly trying to help you. I'm a treasury guy originally who has a little chip implanted in the back of my brain that you know treasury does international economics and others kind of can follow along if they're if they're interested but I must say as a citizen you know I think it's really important for our foreign ministry to be good at economics and to know why it's important and to know how to use it in practical ways to advance our national security and our foreign policy and so that's what we're trying to do here is to help shine light on that important issue and to provide hopefully some constructive suggestions for how to to help state do this better. So I really appreciate your coming. Please join me in thanking undersecretary